There is more GOP anti-voter laws and regulations being passed and put into effect this year than any other year in history.

.

I think that the correct term is gerrymandering, and both parties try to do it. But if the Supreme Court cannot stop this abhorrent practice, who in the union can? The snag is that the Supreme Court tends to divide on ideological lines (remember those hanging chads in Florida that let Bush win?). What a tangled weave!

"In addition, the court-drawn congressional map ensured minorities made up the majority in three additional Texas congressional districts, an outcome the judges said better reflected the growth in the state's Hispanic population."

Who decides what is better represented?? This is just as worst served by some judges as it is by some legislators who rightfully have the vote of their constituents.

The GOP is now the enemy of the American People.

^ And they are like all bullies. They won't stop until you fight back.

No he didn't, you just pulled that out of your ass. Again.

politiciansallsuck

He said YOU have never worked.

My president just said that America has never worked. WTF?

Here's what Obama said but Republican trolls have a problem understanding it.

"Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there’s been a certain crowd in Washington for the last few decades who respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everyone else. And even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, they argue, that’s the price of liberty.

It’s a simple theory – one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade."

In other words, the Republican theory doesn't work and never has worked and contrary to your belief...Republican and America are not the same thing.

heck, the GOP may be your last hope.

If your hope is to destroy the American way of life then you're right but if you want to get this country back to it's lost glory then Democrat is the way to go with the choice we have now. Every Republican candidate that has has any success in the polls is an absolute idiot and a tool of Grover Glenn Norquist.

This is a case of activist liberal judges trying to illegally help out the Democrats by drawing the new district lines with the clear intent of favoring one party over the other. Both parties have obviously been guilty of this over the years, but the courts are supposed to stop it, not participate in it. The district lines should make sense from a geographic perspective. They should not have strange shapes for the sole purpose of giving one party or another an advantage in a district. I have seen districts drawn where the district was not even contiguous so as to give one party an advantage. I am glad to see the Supreme Court stepping in and stopping these activist judges from over reaching and trying to manipulate the voter makeup of the various district to favor one party over another. They need to have legitimate legal reasons for changing what was submitted to them by the state legislature, they can not change the districts just because they have an agenda they are trying to promote.

The Legislature is supposed to be able to draw district boundaries, not a group of judges that think they are above the law. Gerrymandering has long been found to be constitutional, and has worked both ways for generations - Just look at how California Democrats have sliced up districts to benefit themselves.

Both parties draw lines that favor their voting blocks when they have control. Unless it can be shown that this is not trying to favor a party and is instead attempting to lock our minorities, then the court taking over redistricting had no merit.

I doubt they will show this as it is rather clear this is a partisan issue, not a racial one.

Drawing district lines after a census has always been part of the politcal spoils of winning. The judges need to keep their noses out of this because the constitution says so.

The political spoil we all need to keep focused on eliminate is the one of spending billions we don't have to pay back supporters. As usual 2008 was grander than anyone before for handing money over someway to the winners supporters.

The US Supreme Court is now a Supreme disappointment and one of the Justices, Clarence Thomas should be impeached for failing to disclose his wife's income.

Roy, it is, constitutionally, the right of the courts to interpret the law. This power will not put them "above the law". That is if you understand our system. Representation of ethnic and economic individuals is what the legislature is supposed to do. The redrawing of voting districts is based on the current population census, that is why we are asked our ethnicity and income on these census forms.

Gerrymandering has been successfull for the party in majority, only when the courts also agree. Some liberal and conservative judges do make decisions contrary to their political status after they have reached the bench, as it should be.

THe problem is politicians in office draw lines to keep themselves in office and benefit their own party. The more they can make it service their needs, the more seats their party gets, the more seats their party gets the more they can draw the lines to help their party. Self Perpetuating.

Both do it, both are wrong. I won't even bother to cite examples, it would take an essay of thousands of words, it occurs in congressional as well as in-state apportioning. But it is not a "liberal' thing or a "Conservative thing'

They have not found an effective solution in 235 years...don't expect one soon.

JS in SD

"This is a case of activist liberal judges trying to illegally help out the Democrats by drawing the new district lines with the clear intent of favoring one party over the other."

This case was decided by a three judge panel two of whom were appointed by Republican Presidents. It is the Republican justice who has decided the districts drawn by the Texas legislature were a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and therefore are illegal. Do you really want to contend a Republican judge is a liberal activist illegally helping out the Democrats.

Joe Radmacher..(#1.15)..."Clarence Thomas should be impeached for failing to disclose his wife's income."

And yet we still have Little Timmy Turbo-Tax Cheat Geithner as Treasury Secretary...and he failed to disclose HIS OWN INCOME.....

Bob-1920561...(#1.17)..." Representation of ethnic and economic individuals is what the legislature is supposed to do."

Are you really suggesting that Congressional Districts are to be drawn based in INCOME ??? You want to put "poor" people in their own districts ???.... And why might that be....Because they will vote for the Democrat politicians that promise them the most freebies ????

No, quite the contrary, districts are mandated to have a representation of differant incomes. That is part of why the districts are not symetrical, or based on geography. Much of this is related to the Civil Rights Bill of 65', I believe. And would be easy to research.

You really put a spin on your comments politically, that is not warrented, at least as a response to my thought above.

KiloByte1339

Typical, leftists acting like they're above the law - again. Liberalism is a disease.

Typical Republicans accusing the Democrats of gerrymandering when they are really just trying to undo the minority suppressive redistricting the Republicans did after the LAST census.

Typical Republican calling Democrats "typical".

A larger question here is whether illegal aliens are entitled to representation as US citizens. 87% of Texas' population growth since 2000 has been minority and the percentage of Blacks in Texas has actually gone down meaning it was almost entirely Hispanic growth. So do you really think Texas is being flooded by Hispanics from the rest of the states in the US (which have seen their own Hispanic populations also grow)? No. They're being flooded by Hispanics from south of the border. So again the question is, are illegal aliens entitled to representation as US citizens?

Larry-

You seemed to have left out what he said that does indeed support what politicianallsuck was saying:

Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory.

Obama needs a history lesson- he is wrong at every turn. Sorry- but Capitalism is not a theory. It is what this country was founded on- freedom to earn what you can on your own merit. For a President to come out and say that America has failed after 235 years is the most irresponsible thing I have ever heard! What ever happened to American Exeptionalism?? Reagan took over after the colossal failure of Carter and talked of how great America is, even though we were facing very tough times. And just what is he hinting at as the alternative? Socialism? Communism? Marxism?

For Obama to say what he did was an embarrassment for us all. I am ashamed ofhim. He like the 99'ers at OWS do not represent most of America. Fortunately, Obama will be gone in 11 months. For such a smart guy, Obama says some pretty stupid things...

This article was shamelessly biased toward the right. In the whole article there was absolutely zero mention of the right wing REDMAP effort that has attracted millions from the well-placed, such as the Koch brothers. You can google it for yourself ("REDMAP republican" --- there are other uses of the acronym.) And don't worry, most of the online sources are from the GOP, so there won't be any "liberal" polution.

As Jefferson said, "The only legitimate use of majority power is to protect the minorities." This pretty much explains why the Founding Fathers absolutely hated the idea of democracy and only allowed the direct election of one group in government --- the House of Representatives. The President, Vice President, Supreme Court, and Senators were all originally appointed in order to suppress any democratic urges. All but Senators still are.

@Larry,

I think it is you who needs a lesson in American history. This country was not founded on capitalism. In fact it was an unheard of term at that time. There were landowners who struggled financially, no middle class, and a vast majority of people who work at subsistence jobs and trades. There were no such things as personal savings and financial instituions of any consequence. This basically continued until around 1900 with the US being primarily agricultural and lagging far behind Europe in social and financial development.

Pretending that "capitalism" is a meritocracy of a sort is stupid. Most money is inherited. For every Sam Walton, there is a much larger Walton family. Very few people ever earn themselves into the capitalist top ranks and those that do are some pretty strange people indeed. In a true meritocracy, where the results of a person's effort and the value of the effort to society determines pay, a garbage man would make as much or more as a physician and a teacher much more than a CEO. Unfortunately a classist society which has no sense of value tends to reqward people like Donald Trump --- who has actually lost money over his lifetime --- as somehow successful and a university professor as somehow lacking in capitalist initiative. But in lasting impact on society, the university professor will influence far more lives than Trump ever entertained.

What Obama said was not that America had failed, but that the "capitalist" leaders had failed, failed to create new jobs, failed to stay competitive, failed to keep the middle class strong, failed to stay abreast of technology. He called them not failures, but "lazy" and I personally think hje hit it right on the head. LAZY!

The whole of American "exceptionalism" is bizarrely stupid. The idea that we have to go to any of 35 other countries to ride a high-speed train or to any of 130 countries to get better (and cheaper) medical care is exceptional, but not in the way you think. The idea that an American life is worth more than any other life or that our culture is somehow superior is equally lacking in critical thinking. If is a theory from the WWI period that just won't hold water. Wouldn't then and won't not. People are just people whatever culture they were born into.

Reagan took over by simply striking a covert deal with the Iranians (in return for selling them C-130 and Hawk missile replacement parts) to hold the hostages until after the election. They repaid Reagan by releasing the hostages, as agreed, on inauguration day. And Reagan repaid them, by covertly selling then millions of dollars worth of illegal military parts and using the money covertly to support the Contras, an act specifically forbidden by Congress. In addition to giving us the largest tax increase in American history, Reagan undermined the very fabric of federal financial regulation and brought us TWO recessions (generally called Reagan I and Reagan II.) He looted the Social Security and other trust funds and spent $1.3 trillion on the ill-conceived and totally unproductive "Star Wars" X-ray laser project. (Remember that every single project manager resigned citing that an X-Ray laser violated known laws of physics and no accounting was ever made of what happened to the $1.3 trillion.) GHW Bush properly referred to "supply side economics", looting the trust funds, and placing major spending "off budget" as "Voodoo Economics." David Stockman, Reagan's budget director resigned, calling Reagan's economic policies "just plain wrong."

It is YOU who need some lessons in history. Or maybe a good dose of reality. Modern "take it and run" capitalism is only a theory whose conclusion is not yet written. The destruction of the middle class will almost certainly go down as the major accomplisment of the Republicans and who is going to "buy American" when there is no middle class?

Thanks Chris, well said and accurate. Now I don't have to waste my time educating these people.

I think that the correct term is gerrymandering, and both parties try to do it. But if the Supreme Court cannot stop this abhorrent practice, who in the union can?

The Supremes are actually supporting gerrymandering in this case. The Supreme Court has just become another puppet.

@Chris

Actually I'm pretty fed up with this country doing everything to please the minorities, from everything between religion, sex and race. A lot of what is wrong with this country now is everyone has to be PC. My wife saw it in her work place just yesterday. Twenty people working in a health care insurance company, the head doctor put on Christmas music. One lady got upset, so he had to turn it off. What about the other nineteen people that were enjoying it? It's gotten friggin stupid.

As far as districts, they should be based strictly on population. Forget race, income and everything else. None of that should matter. One vote per person, and that vote doesn't count for more or less dependant on your race, religion, sexual orientation, political party or income. All citizens of this country are equal when it comes to voting, so keep it that way. Keep the rest of the bs out of it.

As far as Texas goes, it's already been mentioned here, but due to it's location, I would be more concerned about illegals being involved with the voting.

Are they trying to undo all of TOm Delay's shenanigans or is this a different case of gerrymandering?

@Alex,

I undersand your point, but it is exactly your sort of attitude that the Founding Fathers cited when they decried democracy as the "most pernicious" form of govenment possible. Democracy will ALWAYS be used as a reason for a majority (or even a coalition of minorities) to strip minorities of equal rights. The Founding Fathers had seen democracy in several of the early colonies where it was used to deny the right to free religious practice. They knew that the Pilgrims came here, not to achieve religious freedom, but to practice their religion at the expense of all others. The Founding Fathers had seen the effects of the demoncratic French Revolution and wanted no part of it. JQ Adams called democracy "a vicious monster which devours its own tail."

The idea that illegal immigrants vote at all is an urban legend. The truth is that illegal immigrants virtually never even attempt to register to vote. There have been less than a dozen cases of illegal residents prosecuted for voting in the entire country. There is almost no voter fraud at the polls. The simple process of prior registration and checking off names on a master list is incredibly effective at preventing it. Over 98% of all voting fraud is done in either of two ways --- by conducting voter registration drives and then throwing away the applications of people who registered to vote in your opponent's primary, and in absentee balloting. The remaining 2% are mostly attempts to hide ballots, change counts manually, or other very low-tech cheats. Many states do not condition voting on immigrant status because state laws often refer to "residents" and not "legal residents." In those cases it is actually legal for illegal immigrants to vote in state and local (though never federal) elections.

That nineteen people enjoyed it is not some sort of right to disenfranchise the 20th person. For most of my K-12 education I sat directly behind a Jewish kid. "christian" prayer in schools was allowed then and every morning in home room the same kid was told to go stand in the hall while the other kids prayed. His family wasn't even very religious --- kinda like most so-called "christians" --- major holidays only. For years I watched this kid be singled out and humiliated for the sake of the majority --- a majority that largely couldn't care less. According to your theory, it is perfectly acceptable because the majority wished it.

The fact is that the Founding Fathers wanted this country to be judged by how well it provided for ALL people and not just the majority. They knew that in some aspect, everyone is in a minority in some way.

Remind me again what the unemployment rate was for most of the last decade under Bush and the Repubs? That's right, around 5%. Started climbing when the Dems took over both houses of Congress and now it's around 9% - despite Obama's promise it wouldn't go over 8% if we wasted - err, I mean - spent the 1 trillion dollar stimulus bill!

From the article: "Minorities currently are the majority in 10 of Texas' 32 congressional districts."

lol at minorities being the majority. Rhetorical Question...... Are they still minorities? Wah!

Terrible statistic. Almost a third are "majority minority" if such a thing can be said to exist. The census counts people, not citizens. I suspect American Citizens there need to have a working knowledge of spanish just to go to the store.

Redistricting? Pfffftttt. I'm in Boston, we invented gerrymandering. True story!

Let me see now....

"Any" Republican candidate is getting hammered from "cloaked" sources and the mud slinging continues.

The DOJ is fighting voting regulations.

The DOJ is suing States for trying to uphold Federal Laws.

The SCOTUS is getting into States redistricting issues.

I wonder what is going to come up next out of the Chicago Obama camp....an offshoot of Acorn ? [sarcasm].

The DOJ is fighting voting regulations.

Well, someone has to fight the underhanded tactics the Republicans are trying to pull to disenfranchise voters. If the Republicans had their way only white land owners would be allowed to vote.

They're trying to stop the minorities from voting whether they be Mexican descent, black, Cuban descent, native Americans, etc although they too are American just as our ancestors that came from Europe.

Why is it harder for a minority to get an ID than it is for some one else? Funny how you Dems always like to make fun of Southern "rednecks and hicks"--a bunch of under-educated hillbillies. But somehow THEY are smart enough to figure out how to get an ID and the poor, poor minority Dems aren't?

"Well, someone has to fight the underhanded tactics the Republicans are trying to pull to disenfranchise voters."

Yeah! Republicans are trying to disenfranchise illegal immigrants and the dead all over the country. We must put a stop to this travesty! Remember the Democratic Party's motto: "Vote early and vote often."

No, they surely are not doing what you claim. They may be "saying" that they are trying to..."disenfranchise illegal immigrants and the dead all over the country", but the legislation they are PASSING in many States is clearly targeting college students, minorities, and the elderly who largely vote Democratic, and then they have the gall to bring up their imaginary threats about "voter fraud", which in this country is practically non existent.

vbscript2 :"Yeah! Republicans are trying to disenfranchise illegal immigrants and the dead all over the country. We must put a stop to this travesty! Remember the Democratic Party's motto: "Vote early and vote often."

Whilst rich republicans push voting in their home district, while absenting voting in their seasonal home.

Whilst a Dem waits in a long line, a Republican can vote in the clubhouse.

Yea, we live in a equal society.

Mike dunno why it is so hard for them

Recently (last week or so) a state which is requiring this closed the office you obtain IDs at and moved it way out into the suburbs where it is not even accessible via public transportation. I don't remember which state and could not find it in a quick search,

But I did find how Gov Walker of WI signed a laws requiring photo ID then promptly closed many offices where you can get the required ID, mostly ones in urban areas, while expanding those in the suburban areas.

Gov. Scott Walker’s admin­is­tra­tion is work­ing on final­iz­ing a plan to close as many as 10 offices where peo­ple can obtain driver’s licenses in order to expand hours else­where and come into com­pli­ance with new require­ments that vot­ers show photo IDs at the polls.

And the state told workers in the offices NOT to tell the applicants they can get one for free, unless they ask if it can be free. Thereby costing the applicant $28 to get an ID to vote (in effect a poll tax--illegal)

An inter­nal memo from a top Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion offi­cial instructs work­ers at Divi­sion of Motor Vehi­cles ser­vice cen­ters not to tell mem­bers of the pub­lic that they can obtain voter iden­ti­fi­ca­tion cards free of charge — unless they know to ask for it.

Scott Walker and his cronies want to suppress voting by those not likely to vote for them. While as a Democrat I would prefer Republicans not bother to vote, I would not support any legislation or rules that would discourage them from doing so. This is America, everyone who is eligible should vote.

Frankly True...(#2.7)....Ummm......Frankly UNtrue

First of all...you need to cite where you quote from.....and if it was from the Daily Kos.....that article was rated by Politi-Fact Wisconsin And The Truth-O-Meter rated it as : FALSE

"Daily Kos official says that, with possible recall looming, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker closing DMV offices in poor areas"

"Bowers claimed Walker is closing Department of Motor Vehicles offices in urban areas of Wisconsin where "low-income voters" live.

A plan to close DMV offices had been dropped two months earlier, however, and Daily Kos’ campaign director admitted he had spoken in error.

We rate the statement False."

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/dec/07/daily-kos/daily-kos-says-possible-recall-looming-wisconsin-g/

"Under an original proposal released July 22, the division said it may close 16 locations and open nine new ones, for a net loss of seven centers. The plan called for expanding hours at others....The Legislature also required each county to have a DMV that is open at least 20 hours a week, meaning 40 counties had to expand their hours. The additional hours will create 55 new positions across the state and will bring the total number of DMV centers statewide to 92....Vos said it was ironic that opponents of the voter ID law are critical of a plan that will result in more access to DMV service centers."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/126814653.html

The best one yet:

"Democrats group says Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is denying Democrats the right to vote"

That got a Truth-O Meter rating of : PANTS ON FIRE

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/sep/25/democratic-governors-association/democrats-group-says-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-de/

With all the Hub-bub about the Voter ID law in Wisconsin...Any IDIOT that doesn't know you can get one for free ....well, quite frankly....maybe they shouldn't be voting.....It's on the DMV website and in every newspaper and on TV.

"Our conclusion

The Democratic Governors Association said Walker "is denying Democrats the right to vote."

It can be argued that Wisconsin's photo ID law will lead some people who tend to vote for Democrats to stop voting. It's certainly true that most Wisconsin residents who don't have a photo ID will have to get one in order to vote.

But words matter. The association goes too far in saying Walker is denying Democrats the right to vote. That is simply not the case.

We rate the claim as Pants on Fire." http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/sep/25/democratic-governors-association/democrats-group-says-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-de/

Mike in Delray, above you will find the conclusion of the website you posted, so now we can have the whole story.Spin, parrot, spin.

"Our conclusion

Bowers claimed Walker is closing Department of Motor Vehicles offices in urban areas of Wisconsin where "low-income voters" live.

A plan to close DMV offices had been dropped two months earlier, however, and Daily Kos’ campaign director admitted he had spoken in error."

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/dec/07/daily-kos/daily-kos-says-possible-recall-looming-wisconsin-g/

Again, the conclusion of the article at the website.

"Rep. Andy Jorgensen (D-Fort Atkinson) was a vocal opponent of the original proposal to close 16 DMV locations, including one in his district, and applauded the move to keep all the existing locations open.

"I didn't know what to expect . . . I pushed hard for this in the past two weeks tirelessly, and they finally listened," Jorgensen said. "It certainly is a switch-around."

Had the original plan gone through, Jorgensen said Fort Atkinson residents would have had to make a half-hour drive to the remaining center in Watertown and that no public transportation exists between the two communities.

The 16 centers that were originally set to close were mostly in rural areas, but included one in Oconomowoc. The nine centers that were proposed to open were largely in other rural counties.

Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester), co-chairman of the Legislature's budget committee, said he thought the DMV's original plan was acceptable but praised the agency for coming up with a way to expand hours without closing any facilities.

"I think it's important as we roll out photo ID to make sure that, as much as possible, we have access to photo IDs," Vos said."

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/dec/07/daily-kos/daily-kos-says-possible-recall-looming-wisconsin-g/

Now here is my spin, why did the Republican controlled legislature pass this original bill, then after political and voter opposition, pass a amended bill? Could be they now know people in Wis. are feed up with Walker and his henchmen.

Also, Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester), co-chairman of the Legislature's budget committee, said he thought the DMV's original plan was acceptable, now he agree's that the amended bill is satisfactory.

Spin, baby, spin.

Bob-1920561.....What's your point ??? That if you don't have an ID you'll have to get one ????

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud."

"Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/

You can read the rest.

my point is to cut and paste certain aspects of a article to defend a position, will not give justification to the entire conclusion of the article. Correcting an apparent misquote or mis-information is o.k.

Bob-1920561....I quote what I think is most relevant on the thrust of the article without showing the whole article...and also post the link for the rest...If you come to a different conclusion after reading it.....C'est la vie.....some argue one way, others the other.

@Steve,

I agree. The article failed to mention that the "plans" that the Republicans want the SVCOTUS to look at came out of REDMAP --- a GOP gerrymandering initiative that "seeks to permanently institutionalize a Republkican majority in the House of Representatives."

Gerrymandering has always been with us as a part of the shyster side of American politics. But until the computer age, it was difficult to determine its effectiveness ahead of time. But it has gotten really bad with all the current polarization. One good example is that of Barney Franks. Franks had always had huge support from his constituency --- often in the mid 70% range. But had Franks run again the Republicans had so rearranged things that not a single person who had ever voted for Franks in the past would be elibible to vote for him in 2012. Even Franks' house was no longer in his district.

One thing that makes "creative" redistricting have more impact these days is that populations are much more fixed since so many people cannot move because of the confluence of the housing crisis and the unemployment rates. Where once districts were always in flux and today's redistricting might turn into tomorrow's mistake, not they tend to stay put very much more.

I advocate arbitrary redistricting. You simply divide each state into grid squares equal to the number of House seats and move the lines up or down, right or left, until each "square" has an equal equal number of voters. It's easy and while it can be manipulated a little, it cannot be manipulated very much. I grew up in a city which used this as the method for drawing school districts. They just divided the city into grid squares and built schools accordingly. When the civil rights situation came along, they just eliminated the Black "separate but equal" schools and left the old grid system in place. It meant that my high school became predominantly African-American while others stayed predominantly white. There was never any bussing as a result since no one could find fault with "completely arbitrary."

What was done in Texas was that the Latino population is growing faster than the white population. GOP legislators in Texas want to keep on dividing all minority populations up so that their impact is diluted and "white" wins are guaranteed. Unfortunately for Texas the Latino population is growing so much faster that this results in bizarre shapes for the Congressional districts. This is what got them under court sanctions in the first place. That federal judges sought to preserve the ability of minority groups to be heard through their vote is in itself significant.

One has to ask if the GOP is so weak, and especially in states like Texas and Florida that it has to stoop to this sort of tactics to preserve itself.

I do urge everyone who is reading this to google the Republican REDMAP initiative and its goals for themselves. Redistricting to silence minorities is just plain wrong.

Minority? I live in a county of 4 million people and the school district is 79.4% hispanic. We are the minority!

And the Black panthers voter suppression was dreamed up by the republicans..Get a grip.

Bo, you don't know what your talking about. I wish someone or somebody would have the guts to tell some of these federal judges where they can go, or what they can do with their rulings.

Southern Sandman

You're just sour grapes because the districting maps are SUPPOSED to be decided in state legislatures, and as a result of the 2010 wave election, republicans control a vast majority of those.

So you & your buddy libtards go crying to the courts to evade the laws.

Unfortunately for you, the supreme court has a conservative bent & this will likely go badly for you there. So now the laws will be upheld not evaded.

Cry me a river.

What does Texas have against a fair representation of minorities? The GOP whines constantly, "We're a Christian Nation."--we're not. Texas belonged to Mexico and the rest belonged to the indigenous people. If you want to argue over districting of what is the product of land grabbing, let it be a fair representation by those we stole the land from. How many times has the GOP done restricting?

Yes, Scalia and his sock puppet, Clarence Thomas will side with anything the GOP does and bend the laws in the interpretation, but the other conservatives might surprise you. What next? Want to succeed if you don't get your way?

Are you kidding...we are in the trouble we are in BECAUSE of the rampant UN-educated voter participation of ignorant people. They have no problem getting to the polls.

Heck, If you read the news from around the country, dead people have been voting, and cartoon characters.. even people who are democrat have said that their signature on obummas nomination was forged.. Looks like liberals have no problem here.

Idiots like you never seem to think before you speak.. if your like gets to play under handed, don't gripe when the other side responds. duh!

Southern Sandman, do you realize that its more than just the TX legislature? "Section 5 of the Voteing Rights act of 1965 requires Texas and other jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to seek federal permission to make even minor changes to voting procedures." The TX legislature passes the maps all right but they have to get their changes approved by the courts because of past prejudicial behavior. So we will see who's maps prevail soon after Jan 9, 2012.

Turtle---short, yet succinct! I love it!

Paleoconservatist

Minority? I live in a county of 4 million people and the school district is 79.4% hispanic. We are the minority!

You're making a good case for the Democratic Party of Texas. In as much as Latinos and Blacks are the majority, wouldn't it make sense to have the Texas government that is a fair representation of it's citizens?

I don't think some of you liberals read the article.

"Minorities currently are the majority in 10 of Texas' 32 congressional districts. The new court-drawn map would have raised that to 13 out of 36 districts, an outcome the judges said better reflected the growth in the state's Hispanic population."

It actually helped your cause redrawing the maps.

Now it may get overturned by the supreme court.

Republicans are a full, dirty bag of tricks and lies.

mphill

I don't think some of you liberals read the article.

"Minorities currently are the majority in 10 of Texas' 32 congressional districts. The new court-drawn map would have raised that to 13 out of 36 districts, an outcome the judges said better reflected the growth in the state's Hispanic population."

It actually helped your cause redrawing the maps.

Now it may get overturned by the supreme court.

If it does, it will be with those right wing corporate puppets sticking together. Yes--we read the article. I think the appeal to the SCOTUS is just a way to get to fraudulently keep the districting as is. Those districts look like winding stakes to isolate the Latino and Black vote. I'm not content to see scans being pulled within politics--period. Why won't they outlaw lobbying, Super Pacs, and "Leadership Pac's. It's become a system of bribery. GOP voters are mired in the past. I sure hope people start voting for real Progressives.

Isn't drawing lines to insure one group(minorities) can keep another from being represented a form of Gerrymandering.

Gary, you should be ashamed of making a post like that. How dare you try to get an occupier to think instead of just repeating some emotional appeal. Your post clearly demonstrates that you are bigotted against people who don't think logically (or just don't think at all, as the case may be.)

Wow...Where was the call to end gerrymandering when the Dems had so many state legislatures? I didn't hear a peep from OWS about it then!

@Gary,

The rule the judges were using was the lease area necessary to encompass a growth area. So no.

mikehataway

Wow...Where was the call to end gerrymandering when the Dems had so many state legislatures? I didn't hear a peep from OWS about it then!

We'll just have to break out the Way Back Machine for you and transport the OWS back there for you.

Sorry. Your scheme is retarded. If there are 80% in party X and 20% in party Y, a body of 50% X/Y does NOT represent the people.

Go back and get an education. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

The House of Representatives is proportioned to reflex the population of the nation, the Senate represents the voice of each state on an equal footing so that large states don't overlord smaller states. It's called ballance.

The House of Representatives is proportioned to reflex the population of the nation, the Senate represents the voice of each state on an equal footing so that large states don't overlord smaller states. It's called ballance.

Congressional elections are fine like they are. What needs to happen is to split each state's electoral votes based on the percentage of popular vote each candidate received in that state. It's ridiculous that a candidate gets 100% of a state's electoral votes when he only won the state by under half of one percentage point. When candidate A gets 49.8% of the popular vote in a state and candidate B gets 49.7%, both should get half of the states electors (unless there are an odd number, in which case candidate A should get 1 more than candidate B.) In the current system, nearly half of a state's population can end up effectively voting for the person that they voted against. If you are a Republican in CA or NY, your vote will count for Obama, regardless of who you cast your ballot for. If you are a Democrat in the Southeast, your vote will count against Obama, regardless of who you cast your ballot for. That's absurd.

Actually none of you read the article

The court blocked the use of the maps...they did not overturn them...they will hear arguments before they make a final determination. This is, in effect, a temporary restraining order halting the filing process. The courts will hear arguments on Jan 9.

I thought voters were supposed to decide control of the house but it seems like politicians, lobbyists and now federal judges are making the decisions.

they are

Alison, they are supposed to. Which is why the SCOTUS overruled the lower court that was seeking to interfere with the legislature's job. Also, that clause from the Voting Rights Act requiring federal approval in certain places should be repealed ASAP. In fact, it should probably be stricken as unconstitutional.

vbsscript they did not OVERULE the lower court, they have issued no ruling at all, they have not heard the arguments yet...that is Jan 9 then they will make a ruling.

Courts do not issue rulings before they hear arguments

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. But since its Texas everyone 1st thinks of Bush and Perry which instantly means Republicans are screwing minorities. At the end of the article:

"Minorities currently are the majority in 10 of Texas' 32 congressional districts. The new court-drawn map would have raised that to 13 out of 36 districts, an outcome the judges said better reflected the growth in the state's Hispanic population."

That's a lean towards Democratic voting if I remember right.

They should strike down 99% of the districts of the country that have rigged their elections in favor of whatever party is in control. In states that lean Democrat it's unfairly tilted to put Democrats in office and the same in Republican states. You can't vote the bums out because the bums are in control of the districts.

In WI our Hitler style gop gov is demanding using the redistricting maps which is intended for Nov 2012 elections to move to this coming spring because we nearly have the total votes to recall him. He first went to the supreme court and when his new judge has to bow out for health? issues he refiled to a panel of three judges who donated to his election big time in his old district! Tell me money does not control our elected officials! He also is bringing legislature to advance mining in northern WI with NO public input, comment and eliminated ALL DNR restrictions! Boy talk about corrupt GOP leaders!!!

Obama/Biden 2012

The Supreme Court did not strike down the TX districts. A lower federal court did that and the SCOTUS overturned the lower court's decision, reinstating the districts set by the TX legislature. Gerrymandering is legal. This was decided a long, long time ago.

Wrong the court has not overturned anything yet.

We have similar districts in TN, but they actually do make sense. Nashville has its own district and the suburbs around it have a separate one. The demographics are very different between the two districts. Each district represents areas that are more similar to each other rather than just geographically closer. This actually makes sense. We could just cut Nashville up and divide parts of it between the surrounding districts and thereby eliminate the (D) seat in Nashville, but we don't do that. We have a similar district for Memphis, since its demographics also differ drastically from its surrounding counties.

There was a reason that the area's were torn up. I am and Independent white and now stuck in the black and minority area. My wish is for every American from the age of 18 until almost dead get's out to vote. The GOPer's are tearing the country apart regardless of who's life they mess up. They won't work with the Demo's because as they said their goal is to be rid of Obama, which in their language is get rid of the black. The one's on stage now touting their horn's are truly- truly ugly personalitys. each would stab you in the back at a blink. Tho Michele is the only sane one.

I disagree. It makes sense to group areas that are more demographically similar into their own districts. This gives each group their own representation. Rural, urban, and suburban districts often have very different interests, all of which should be represented. Districting based on these differences gives each group their fair representation. For instance, in TN, Nashville has its own district and the surrounding suburbs are in different ones. We could have just split Nashville up between the surrounding districts and eliminated the (D) seat, but we leave it in order to allow the urban group to have their fair representation.

Making districts to give this group or that one political clout is wrong. It has been developed into a fine art of abuse.

Did you even read the article? The SCOTUS simply overturned a lower federal court which was interfering with state election business. The SCOTUS agrees that the federal courts shouldn't be doing the TX legislature's job.

vbscript for the third time DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE? The Court has not overturnd ANYTHING

All they did was stop the filings for office so they can hear arguments on Jan 9 and then make a decision.

The order brings to a halt filing for legislative and congressional primary elections that began Nov. 28.

vbscript2: Nothing is overturned yet. Hearings are coming up. oops , sorry Frankly True, thought you were gone.

By allowing the federal judges to re-destrict the congressional map, it creates a void for a need of a budget to a yearly study of migration pattern of the people in Texas so the federal judges can re-district the congressional map again to ensure all votes count again in the future. But this is not being done because i don't hear news of a re-district congressional map every year. Somehow Texas cowboys think it is okay to allow federal judges to make decisions for the legislative branch one time is still okay.

the balance of power among the three branch of government in the USA is not made possible by going to church and pray. Texas cowboys in government work should know better than that.

...and the other side would say the same thing:

The Kangaroo Court ( AKA Supreme Court ) is full of bias left wing nuts who would never vote against their Democratic buddies. These clowns are a disgrace to their office and to America.

...I wonder if SCJ Kagan is going to remove herself from the ObamaCare hearing/ruling since she was Prez-0's solicitor general during its creation (kinda like Egor assisted in creating Frankenstein) ?

mike,

I think you are gerrymandering your logic.

alsophia from #25.1

what election year or when did you heard about word "gerrymandering"? just curious.

WHAT???????? The Democrats have not been in charge of Texas for nearly 20 years and redistricting has taken place THREE TIMES since then, one of which Tom Delay was convicted for rigging. Mike, you are definatly a product of the Texas Educational system!!!!

TTTTT--what exactly do you have against Texas?

mikehathaway, lets see. George W. Bush, Rich Perry, more executions than the rest of the nation COMBINED, highest incarceration in the world. lowest rates of HS graduations, highest amount of minimum wage workers, they think they should not obey US law and should secede. Do I need to continue? We hear a great deal about "Texas Pride". What exactly is it that Texans have to be proud of? You actually brag about one of the stupidest military decisions in history (Alamo). Have you even listened to Perry? And Texans call him their BEST leader!!!! LMFAO!!!! Was your question to TTTTTT a serious one? Texans believe they are somehow special simply by the virtue of having been born on a strip of land.